your an idiot who knows nothing of socialist hsitory or theory. early on the motivations and goals of anarchist and socialist were one in the same. the two camps mingled as it were. the ulitmate goal of the global revolution was to abolish statehood altogether, and to have as little semi governance as possible.

Marx was an idiot who didn't understand the free market or supply and demand. No matter the size of government, any collectivism such as socialism or communism restricts individual rights. If you want to restrict freeom...fine. I just think calling it

How can it be libertarian? Anarcho-Communists want to outlaw private property and capitalism. If I'm suddenly more successful than someone, the cough cough government (anarchy ha!) will take away my what I earned. Can we say eminent Domain? How is that pro freedom? It's no different from communism or fascism.

Communism is not a form of government. When the government has near complete control of the economy, it is called a command economy. Communism is fine, as long as it is a few people who are sharing wealth of their own free will. Of course, when government forces people to do it, that's bad and it is against anarchism/libertarianism.

BTW, I think this "Anarcho-Communism" and "Libertarian-Socialism" stuff is all a bunch of wast and Libertaraians have more important things to focus on. I'd like to see someone just try to win an election with the words "Anarchist-Communism". It's a shame that someone made a group about it.

Thor is an idiot. Anarcho-communism makes perfect sense, it's a philosophy that's anti-state and anti-capitalism. It's against state authority and against capitalist hierarchy. Read Peter Kropotkin sometime. Libertarianism is only 60 years old, Anarcho-communism is 170 years old. Anarcho-communists believe in egalitarian society with no state, common ownership of property and private ownership of possessions. A factory is property, a house is a possession.

Libertarianism has been around longer than 60 years. The founding fatherers were libertarians ie "classical liberals". So I could say that libertarianism is 230 years old, but that's silly to even bring up.

Thor, you are an idiot. The founding fathers were not Libertarians, they were Democratic-Republicans. I don't know who the hell told you they were Libertarians, but they were full of sh*t. Go look it up.

And no Thor, you are wrong. Goverment force is needed exactly to enforce private ownership of the means of production and capitalism. Without a government, what is there to enforce labor contracts? What enforces intellectual property? What worth does money have without a goverment enforcing fiat value? No goverment is needed to enforce common ownership of production because without a government, no one can force others to work for them or enforce currency. Private owners would need militaries (ie. state).

On the other hand, communal property needs no hierarchical state enforcement because without capital there is no way anyone can deprive another person of property or force another to work for them. No one is landless. And without capital, people are free to keep what they produce. They aren't alienated from what they produce.

The founding fathers were so libertarians. Jefferson and Madison are among America's most famous and influential libertarians. And you don't need government force to protect private property...that's what gun is for.

No, the Founding Fathers were not Libetariarns. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/archives/librtrin.htm
And to defend private property with a gun would lead to the rise of a state as a private military force would be needed to enforce private property. What would you do, shoot people who won't work for you?

Better link: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/revisionism.html
Haha, anarcho-commies are retarded? Then why do most people (including non-anarchists) not accept anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? Or even as a real form of capitalism? Private property is simply a private form of state and is inherently against equality, it needs a state to protect it against those without property who might rebel.

Is that the best you could do? Pull someone's opinion from a geocities site? Jefferson was possibly the most libertarian founding father. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." "Dependence leads to subservience." "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Jefferson supported democracy, but he first and formost supported liberty over tryanny, whether that tyranny came from a dictatorship or a democracy.

Well communists like you don't believe in natural rights. You believe in government given rights. Rights don't come from the government. Rights are inherent. Under your interpretation of property, society owns your labor and your body. The only way you can enforce communal ownership of your body and labor is through force. Therefore it's stupid to claim to have no state when society ends up having as much control over you as a dictatorship would.

To clear up the argument:
Anarcho-socialism would make sense, since Socialism is natural sharing out of one's own will, and started as a religious ideal based on the New Testament.
Communism was Marx's atheist version of Socialism, based upon the idea to actually apply it to a government.
Anarchy is the attempt at no organized government, since governments are believed by anarchist to be inherintly evil.
Communism requires a government,
Anarchy requires a lack of government,
therefore, Anarcho-Communist

Thank you for schooling this idiot about socialism and anarchism. If he actually took a look at the history of political ideas he would know that socialism means ownership by the people or workers. Anarchists don't believe in hierarchy, government and centralization and thus naturally view capitalism as a form of centralization (because it gives control and ownership of land and resources the few) and a form of hierarchy (because capitalists have power to deny others access to land and means of production)

Also, private property in the capitalist sense (one or a few people controlling and owning the land and resources and means/factors of production) has never been achieved without force, violence or coercion. Governments always exist to protect the privileges of some elite group. Without a central government, capitalists just substitute the state with capitalist-owned court systems and private police and armies.

Lol. You are defending something called "Anarchist-Communism" and you say I don't know anything about political systems? The name is a frickin oxymoron and the explanation of it is more indepth than the explanation of fascism. Does that make any sense at all?

you probly havn't realized this yet, but people are not completely conciouse creatures, they bascially follow what society has programed into them to do. all political systems, all of civilizaiton in general is about altering human behavior. those who engineer these systems are forever using them to meet their own needs mostly at the expence of everyone else. this is why the rich and powerful, from argoropagas in athens to the founding fathers have a strong susspision and outright hostility to democracy

Well that at least explains why there are so many retarded anarchists getting brainwashed by other anarchists and preaching the same thing they all got from a wikipedia page since they have no free will of their own. lol.

they founding fathers system wasnt that great. they denied voting rights to anybody who wasnt white, male, and owned land. you by law had to be whealthy to hold office. The constitution was largely a compromise between the investment class of the north, and the landowners of the south, and the north got the better deal which set us poor folk up for the civil war. I beleive it was 40 of the 55 delegates who had finacial motivations for construcitng a strong federal government and banking system.

but we cant say that, no because the "founding fathers" sacred. the bill of rights is an important document, although it gets ignored all the time. and what is all this property rights bS about? did southern blacks have any property rights when they were forced off their land by bayonet point after the civil war by US soldiers? how about the indians? how about the eminant domain, and the japanize concentration camps? how about espionage act which threw people in jail for making movies?